#5 THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 142877. October 2, 2001

JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS, minors,
represented by their mother, CAROLINA A. DE JESUS, petitioners,
vs
THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON, ANGELINA V. DIZON,
CARLOS DIZON, FELIPE DIZON, JUAN DIZON, JR. and MARYLIN DIZON and
as proper parties: FORMS MEDIA CORP., QUAD MANAGEMENT CORP.,
FILIPINAS PAPER SALES CO., INC. and AMITY CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIAL
ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents.
PONENTE: VITUG, J.

Facts:
It was during the marriage of Danilo and Carolina Aves de Jesus that Jacqueline and
Jinkie were born. In a notarized document dated 1991, Juan G. Dizon acknowledged
Jacqueline and Jinkie as being his own illegitimate children by Carolina. In 1992, Juan
died intestate. Armed with his notarized acknowledgment, petitioners filed a complaint
for Partition of the Dizon estate with RTC Quezon in 1993.

In 2000, respondents filed an omnibus motion praying for the dismissal of the complaint
on the ground that an action for partition was not an appropriate forum to ascertain the
question of paternity and filiation, an issue that could only be taken up in an independent
suit or proceeding. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action ruling
that the declaration of heirship could only be made in a special proceeding inasmuch as
petitioners were seeking the establishment of a status or right. Hence, the petition.

Petitioners argued that their recognition as being illegitimate children of the

decedent, embodied in an authentic writing, is in itself sufficient to establish their status
as such and does not require a separate action for judicial approval following the doctrine
enunciated in Divinagracia vs. Bellosillo.

Issue:

Ruling:
Petition is Denied.

The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (1)

the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission
of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1)
the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.[4] The due recognition of an
illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or
in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the
child, and no further court action is required.[5] In fact, any authentic writing is treated
not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that
does not require a separate action for judicial approval.[6] Where, instead, a claim for
recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove paternity, i.e.,
outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or an
authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is
essential in order to establish the childs acknowledgment.[7]

A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were born during the marriage
of their parents. The certificates of live birth would also identify Danilo de Jesus as being
their father.

There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on
sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in
wedlock are legitimate.[8] This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of
proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first
120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the
physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact
that the husband and wife are living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse is
not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual
intercourse.[9] Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods set forth in Article
170,[10] and in proper cases Article 171,[11] of the Family Code (which took effect on 03
August 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally
feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable.[12]

Succinctly, in an attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation to the late Juan G.

Dizon, petitioners, in effect, would impugn their legitimate status as being children of
Danilo de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus. This step cannot be aptly done because the
law itself establishes the legitimacy of children conceived or born during the marriage of
the parents. The presumption of legitimacy fixes a civil status for the child born in
wedlock, and only the father, [13] or in exceptional instances the latters heirs,[14] can
contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. Thus, it is
only when the legitimacy of a child has been successfully impugned that the
paternity of the husband can be rejected.

Respondents correctly argued that petitioners hardly could find succor

in Divinagracia. In said case, the Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings the action for partition filed by an illegitimate child who had claimed to be
an acknowledged spurious child by virtue of a private document, signed by the
acknowledging parent, evidencing such recognition. It was not a case of legitimate
children asserting to be somebody elses illegitimate children. Petitioners totally ignored
the fact that it was not for them, given the attendant circumstances particularly, to declare
that they could not have been the legitimate children, clearly opposed to the entries in
their respective birth certificates, of Danilo and Carolina de Jesus.

The rule that the written acknowledgment made by the deceased Juan G. Dizon
establishes petitioners alleged illegitimate filiation to the decedent cannot be validly
invoked to be of any relevance in this instance. This issue, i.e., whether petitioners are
indeed the acknowledged illegitimate offsprings of the decedent, cannot be aptly
adjudicated without an action having been first been instituted to impugn their legitimacy
as being the children of Danilo B. de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus born in lawful
wedlock. Jurisprudence is strongly settled that the paramount declaration of legitimacy by
law cannot be attacked collaterally,[15] one that can only be repudiated or contested in a
direct suit specifically brought for that purpose. [16] Indeed, a child so born in such
wedlock shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as having been an adulteress.[17]

- Digested [23 October 2017, 23:38]

***